Re: IESG's Review of EMSD Specification
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IESG's Review of EMSD Specification
- To: brian@hursley.ibm.com, mohsen@neda.com
- Subject: Re: IESG's Review of EMSD Specification
- From: braden@ISI.EDU
- Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:11:54 -0800
- Cc: iesg@ISI.EDU, braden@ISI.EDU, jkrey@ISI.EDU, rfc-ed@ISI.EDU, records@neda.com
- Content-Length: 1112
- Posted-Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:11:54 -0800
*> *> *> The spirit of that section is to accommodate parallel *> experimentation and to introduce competition amongst *> protocols. Right? *> Mohsen, In general, a competition among ideas is a GOOD thing, but a competition among protocols is a BAD thing. A network protocol is intended to provide interoperability, and having more than one protocol for the same application or service is clearly the antithesis of interoperability. One of the reasons for NOT publishing EMSD would be the fear that you foolishly imagine EMSD to be in competition with SMTP. Although I am not speaking for the RFC Editor here, I suspect that the RFC Editor was willing to publish your protocol ONLY because it is for a specialized domain in which over-engineering is appropriate. I keep suggesting to you that you stifle, and you keep ignoring my suggestion. *> The idea there is that no one group has exclusivity *> on good ways and good ideas and that RFC publication *> can help parallel experimentation. Right? *> Wrong. Bob Braden (speaking for himself) *> *> ...Mohsen. *> *>
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: IESG's Review of EMSD Specification
- From: Mohsen BANAN <mohsen@neda.com>
- Re: IESG's Review of EMSD Specification
- Prev by Date: Re: IESG's Review of EMSD Specification
- Next by Date: Re: IESG's Review of EMSD Specification
- Prev by thread: Re: IESG's Review of EMSD Specification
- Next by thread: Re: IESG's Review of EMSD Specification
- Index(es):